Forum:Wiki Review 2
Hello everyone! This is a continuation of the wiki recap I said we were to have every 3 months so that we all have a consensus on certain things around here. This forum is meant to help us determine a few things that the community needs input on. The subjects may be from the past as well. There will be a list of voting sections here. Don't be afraid to vote for what you want. Thanks guys! 05:27, 11/14/2011 Voting Rollback Editor Highlight (Neutralized) I have noticed that this has been an issue that has been bothering everyone for a while, so I'd like to bring it up again. First off, I want to say that even though rollback editors aren't a big deal, they still are considered to be users with rights. I have seen many wikis with rollback highlights, and if they aren't a big deal, then I don't see what the big deal is to keep the highlight. This section is to see who wouldn't like to see the highlight removed. 05:27, 11/14/2011 Voting will end on November 19, 2011. ;Support # I support not removing the highlight per reasons stated above. 05:27, 11/14/2011 # i support not removing them based on the fact it gave/gives new editors something to strive for a little something to let them know they are recognized for their efforts in contributing to the wiki. Although as you can see my opinion may be a bit biased 10:22, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # While I am fairly neutral on this matter, the point that makes me support it is that not all normal editors have experience in making edits and fixing vandalism, and as such the highlight points out to them that these users have at least a small amount of experience and can provide basic help. It's true that they may be confused with mods and bureaucrats, but that may also be a problem of raising awareness of the user rights. Rapacious 20:33, November 15, 2011 (UTC) # Are we really starting this again? Anyways, I feel that a highlight denotes a helpful member of the community, and does not imply user rights as others have stated. 02:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ;Neutral # Depends mostly on the opinions of rollback editors if they want it or not. I personally think you encourage more contributions if highlights weren't limited to users with rights. LionsLight 06:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) ;Oppose # 05:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # The colors are used to distinguish between users with certain access rights. Although rollbacks have one additional tool then others they are not able to perform administrative tasks therefore allowing them a highlight would serve no purpose. I don't think a user needs to know who has rollbacks rights as, in a hypothetical situation, won't see the need in a user contacting a rollback simply to request them save time to revert an edit rather than themselves undoing it. It's simply used to distinguish between users who can offer additional aid to others. It's false advertising giving them a highlight. 07:12, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # No need. Not important. They're not mods. They're just regular users with one added ability. ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # Please remove the highlight. [[User:Paul Levesque|'Paul Levesque']] [[User talk:Paul Levesque|'Talk to Me!']] 04:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC) ;Closing Statement *Neutralized There was an equal amount of votes from both sides of the community's decision, so therefore, nothing will be done about the highlight. 17:40, 11/20/2011 Affiliates (Declined) This is a new topic that needs to be discussed sooner or later. Per a previous forum, I'd like to know the community's opinion about adding an Affiliates section on the main page. It wouldn't be anything like the wikia gaming footer/header, it would be a small section off to the side with other's wiki logos. Basically we add their logo to our main page and they add ours to their main page so we can exchange and attract more editors. 05:27, 11/14/2011 Voting will end on November 19, 2011. ;Support # I don't see why not. It would not only bring new editors, but our wiki's name would get around wikia even more. 05:27, 11/14/2011 ;Neutral # Really could go either way on this one. I doubt it'll bring a large or noticeable influx of new editors, but I'm not sure if there's any real harm to doing it anyways.--Constantly Confuddled Sth 07:08, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # it would bring more advertisement to the wiki and also to the game itself but it would also assosiate our wiki with anothers so if we ever did we would have to be extremely careful who we get into bed with so to speak 10:29, November 14, 2011 (UTC) ;Oppose # Very little benefit to us. 05:37, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # The majority of your editors are LoL players, the only way you'd get a significant increase in contributors is by affiliating with large LoL forums LionsLight 06:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # We would receive no benefit from it 07:13, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # It's currently fine the way it already is. ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # No reason for this IMO. 04:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC) # 02:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ;Closing Statement * Voting was closed early due to an great amount of users voting on one side of the discussion. Therefore, the community has decided to not add an Affiliates section to the main page. 00:10, 11/18/2011 Emoticons (Approved) This is minor. I just want to know if everyone is ok with re-adding emoticons to chat. Wikia has removed the lag from them, and I don't see harm with having them. 05:27, 11/14/2011 Voting will end on November 17, 2011. ;Support # Per above. 05:27, 11/14/2011 # 05:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC) ;Neutral # I'm more interested in having templates that allow you to respond to people when they do something. If someone constantly join or sign out of chat, you can place this: I believe certain people should be able to use it, though(to avoid abuse). But in all honestly, emoticons aren't really necessary. I'm not against it because I'm sure a bunch of people would love it on chat. Just keep it tone down so that people won't be spamming it on chat. ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 10:37, November 14, 2011 (UTC) ;Oppose # I don't see them adding that much more, and even if they don't come coupled with lag, I feel that they'll wind up just being bothersome. Furthermore, as a fan of punctuation-all-over-the-place, I usually find them in places they weren't intended. --Constantly Confuddled Sth 07:11, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # I've repeated my reasons for a long, long time. : Making the chat laggs, Don't bring them back plz. 04:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC) #* I explicitly said that wikia removed the lag from them -__- 00:20, 11/16/2011 ;Closing Statement * 05:32, 11/21/2011 Removal of Article Comments (Declined) I don't really want to remove them, but I have to make sure we have consensus on every corner of the wiki. I have seen a few wikis that remove article comments. I personally think that they can let people who don't know how to edit whatsoever add some information about a certain page. Although we do get some vandals and spammers, we have enough mods, admins, and crats who can handle them. 05:27, 11/14/2011 Voting will end on November 16, 2011. ;Support # Comments are often several pages of data to load with every page, when I'm sure many users are only interested in the article itself. I would rather that each article have a Talk Page instead of comments; it would serve the same purpose without cluttering the main article. A second benefit of this would be that, for those Following an article, there will be a See Differences link in the e-mail notification, so that you don't have to go searching through the comments to figure out which one is the one you were notified about. —ProtonZero [talk] 04:26, November 16, 2011 (UTC) # substitute comment by conventional talk page: #*Comments are disasters to read the "recent changes" list. #*Comments are not grouped into sections, that means any discussion is random and hard to trace per topic. #*Any new comment to the page does not notify in user's watchlist (following list), that means article with low comment traffic will easily get flooded in recent changes list and never get proper reply by those watching/following the page. #*Comments in article subpages are lost once the main page is renamed/moved. #*Anon cannot edit their own comment again once submitted. #*Normal user cannot delete their own comment if they find it inappropriate. #*Trolling/profane/personal attack comments cannot be removed by normal users. #*Comments are excluded from search result. #*You can archive old discussion in conventional talk page but not comment. #*The only page justifies comment section is the user's BLOG. -- Inpursuit (talk) 04:54, November 16, 2011 (UTC) ;Neutral # ;Oppose # No strong reason to remove them. 05:27, 11/14/2011 # , they are most of the wiki's activity :/ 05:37, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # Agreed with Ajraddatz, they provide plenty of activity on the Wiki. LionsLight 06:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # They provide activity, and bring in new editors. If they really are becoming a bother, mayhaps they can be separated or cordoned off, but not removed.--Constantly Confuddled Sth 07:13, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # I think the real question is: Why should we remove this? ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # Agreed most of our contributions come from here give people more of a reason to visit the wiki. 10:12, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # What will happen to our wiki visitors that only comments if comment system is removed? [[User:Paul Levesque|'Paul Levesque']] [[User talk:Paul Levesque|'Talk to Me!']] 04:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC) Just saying, on Wiki's I've worked on, it's bad etiquette to delete or remove comments in Talk pages for whatever reason unless it's for archival purposes. Though I agree that as it is, it's cluttering up Recent Changes and difficult to sort through on the page itself. LionsLight 05:12, November 16, 2011 (UTC) :The problem of prohibiting normal user to remove clearly inappropriate comment (profanity/personal attack) is that article with less comment traffic will get ignored by sysops. I remember one page with 1 single comment which should be removed for profanity but I can't search it again and report it because the search engine doesn't include comments. (It's my fault for not reporting it immediately because I thought it was too trivial to do so.) -- Inpursuit (talk) 05:58, November 16, 2011 (UTC) :Removing or hiding other's comment in article talk page is partially acceptable with strict limitation in Wikipedia. . -- Inpursuit (talk) 06:17, November 16, 2011 (UTC) Thankfully, you can hide comments from RC by only viewing mainspace edits. 02:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC) :No thanks. I want to be notified a topic is being discussed, particularly the article with low comment traffic, commenting instead of posting message in talk page is what causes the inefficiency of notification unless the article is being commented daily. -- Inpursuit (talk) 03:17, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ;Closing Statement * While there might be good and valid points on both sides of the discussion, the community has agreed to not remove article comments. 00:10, 11/18/2011 Removal of Voting Polls (Declined) This is something that wiki recently added for use to decide whether to keep or not. I don't see polls causing any problems, but consensus should still be taken just in case. 05:27, 11/14/2011 Voting will end on November 16, 2011. ;Support # ;Neutral # I go neutral 04:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC) ;Oppose # No need. 05:27, 11/14/2011 # 05:38, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # --Constantly Confuddled Sth 07:15, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # ^ ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # Also, it seems absurd that we're voting on the possibility of ending our voting >_> 02:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC) #: Voting polls aren't these voting sections, if that's what you're saying. 23:48, 11/17/2011 ;Closing Statement * The majority of the community has agreed to not remove voting polls. 00:10, 11/18/2011 Removal of Blogs (Declined) This is also quite minor. I want to see if anyone has a good reason to remove or not to remove blogs from the wiki. They can be useless and spam, but they can also be a great way for editors to interact. 05:27, 11/14/2011 Voting will end on November 16, 2011. ;Support # ;Neutral # Neutral again... 04:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC) ;Oppose # Per above. 05:27, 11/14/2011 # 05:38, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # They're like the article comments. They attract contributors! ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # unfortunately sometimes we do get spam blogs but for the most part it inspires activity on the wiki i also love reading the comedic blogs myself :) 10:32, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # I do suggest some guidelines for creating blogs, though. As it is, it's nice because they allow people to make personal material available instead of occupying mainspace. 02:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ;Closing Statement * The majority of the community has agreed to not remove article comments. 00:10, 11/18/2011 Badges (Declined) I have requested wikia regarding the badges. The reason we removed them in the first place was because of the mess we made with all of the custom badges. But if wikia somehow can reset the original badge system, then I want them to be added back for a couple reasons. Not only do they motivate users to edit, it may also convince anons to create accounts and learn more about the wiki and wikia itself. 05:27, 11/14/2011 Voting will end on November 19, 2011. ;Support # I only support adding them back if wikia can reset them. 05:27, 11/14/2011 # original system, per above. 05:38, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # When i fist joined the wiki it was a good incentive to contribute more maby its just my ego but i liked the idea of having badges that show off my skillz but i agree with tech if they can be reset. 10:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) ;Neutral # I remember badges. They were pretty cool. I understand that some might enjoy having them add in, but it isn't as important. Not interested. I just hope it won't cause any problem like in the past. ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # I am taking a neutral stance on this. My reasons are that the pros and cons are pretty balance. On one hand, we would be giving a small sense of accomplishment to our fellow editors, but on the other hand, we will get edits that will be made only for the sake of badges. If we could establish a proper conduct over it, then i'd be all for it. However, that may prove to be too much of a hassle.Rapacious 21:00, November 15, 2011 (UTC) ;Oppose # Tons-of-spam for everyone if these come back. # My reason is the same as Demise 04:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC) # silly things Dysrhythmia 02:25, November 18, 2011 (UTC) # Same as Demise, also, there's next to no benefit from having them, especially since we can't reset them. 22:31, November 19, 2011 (UTC) ;Closing Statement (On hold) * It turns out that the badges can't be reset and the community has voted in favor of oppose anyway. 17:40, 11/20/2011 Rollback Rights (Approved) Now that I was able to see what it would be like to promote all of our rollback editors to chat mod, I don't see a need for it. There are some rollback editors that never go on chat, so this section is about the package user rights for chat mod and rollback. Voting will end on November 19, 2011. ;Support # I don't see a need for them to be a package deal. If you need chat mod, apply for chat mod, if you need rollback, apply for rollback, if you need both, apply for both. 05:27, 11/14/2011 # rollback =/= chatmod 05:39, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # IRC Moderators require different skills from Rollback editors. Both should be picked on a case by case basis. LionsLight 06:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # Hurr 07:14, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # --Constantly Confuddled Sth 07:17, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # Why was this combined in the first place? lol ಠ_ಠ WaterDude™ 07:41, November 14, 2011 (UTC) # ^No idea meself :P. 04:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC) # 02:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ;Neutral # ;Oppose # ;Comments @Water&Paul: this is why... 05:00, November 15, 2011 (UTC) : Ooh, I see now. 00:14, November 16, 2011 (UTC) ::There's nothing wrong with that. If you don't agree/disagree with something, you should explain why. 00:22, 11/16/2011 ;Closing Statement * Voting was closed early due to an great amount of users voting on one side of the discussion. Therefore, the community has decided to split the rollback editor and chat moderator rights. 00:10, 11/18/2011 User Help Page (Approved) As it is, there is no centralized place for requesting help - I'd like to make one. Instead of linking to the talk pages of various admins and crats, let's make a centralized page where everyone can ask for and give help. Sound good? 00:37, November 16, 2011 (UTC) Voting will end on November 19, 2011. ;Support # 00:37, November 16, 2011 (UTC) # Sounds good. 00:43, 11/16/2011 # 03:22, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ;Neutral # ;Oppose # ;Comments *Hopefully will be used more than our help desk (our current centralized place for requesting help). Regarding that help desk... it would be confusing having that help page and the help desk at the same time. 22:51, November 19, 2011 (UTC) ;Closing Statement * It seems that the community is in favor of adding this new page. 17:40, 11/20/2011 Administrator Noticeboard (Approved) I was thinking we should have an administrator noticeboard. It's pretty much the same thing as the vandalism reports page, but it's far better in my opinion. On this page, users without certain rights will be able to report vandalism, bad comment, deletion of pages, protection of pages, etc. It would be far better to have this page instead of having many different pages when they could all be neatly organized into one page. Once a user with administrative tools decides to complete or not to complete a report/request, they will use the Done template or the Not done template. 02:02, 11/17/2011 Voting will end on November 19, 2011. ;Support # It would be neater and less disorganized. 02:02, 11/17/2011 # Only if done requests are moved to a subpage or something of the original page, leaving them there and stamping on a template just makes the page cluttered. 03:23, November 17, 2011 (UTC) #Sure. 04:23, November 17, 2011 (UTC) # Know im not an admin but anything that can help you guys help us help the wiki...(yah i think thats right) seems just fine to me! 22:41, November 19, 2011 (UTC) # Loved to see this implemented. --LoLisNumbaWan 10:07, November 20, 2011 (UTC) ;Neutral # ;Oppose # ;Comments ;Closing Statement * The community has agreed to add this new page. 17:40, 11/20/2011 Discussion/Comments * This is all I can currently think of that we might need community consensus on. If you have any other topics that you would discuss, please let me know here in the comments section or you can leave a message on my talk page. Thanks for voicing all of your opinions! 05:27, 11/14/2011 * A note on "Removal of Blogs" although not specific to it. Articles should not be deleted from a wiki, ever, with the exception of obvious spam or vandalism. They can be moved, unlinked, renamed, and rerouted, but there should be no reason to remove delete entire pages of content that was worked on. "Guides" being a very specific example of something that was obliterated. While I agree that this Wiki is suppose to be about facts (minus the content section) or as close as we can make it, and not a strategy site, The content in that guide section should be able to be found, or re-categorized to blogs. The same goes for removal of specific players. I still don't understand the decision to remove those, it made no sense. It is always better to err on the side of too much information than too little. Asperon Thorn 02:19, November 18, 2011 (UTC) *:I'd support having guides, but not players at all. It is way too hard to establish a notability guideline around players, so I'd prefer to have none at all. Maybe a single article for famous players. 02:58, November 18, 2011 (UTC) *::Again. . what purpose does censoring that type of article serve? There doesn't have to be an overarching guideline. That is the purpose of a wiki, the editors themselves come to a consensus of information. Articles just sit there. If they are relevant to other articles they get links. Player articles that are less relevant get linked less, seen less, updated less. . so why remove them? Why remove anything besides vandalism really? As long as it is LoL related, can be confirmed, and someone may want to know it. . .then it deserves a place here. Asperon Thorn 03:21, November 18, 2011 (UTC)